Aw man, can we PLEASE have Congressional hearings as to whether Grimsley did indeed bust out Albert Belle's (or Sosa's, for that matter) corked bats?

So Jose Canseco was right all along and when he spoke out no one listened. We all knew he was telling the truth, we just hated him and hated his reason for coming out (personal profit $).

Mr. Grimsley has been released:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=2474297

Thanks, I think your comment and my update passed as streams of electrons in the ether as the Toaster is a little balky today.

The faster this HGH thing explodes, the better. The MLBPA and and the commish's office can not let this issue linger for years like the steroids issue. Unfortunately, I think its time to freeze blood and urine samples. We may not be able to catch them now, but we can always check later.

Looking at the Arizona roster on Gameday, I believe Enrique Gonzalez was called back up.

5

agree on all points ...

MLB can pat itself on the back all it wants over its new steroid policy, but the fact remains that the policy was basically FORCED down their throats by pressure from Congress.

And yet, the new policy can do nothing about the use of HGH ....

I find it somewhat more than suspicious that Mr. Giambi suddenly regained his stroke almost immediately after the Yanks asked him to go down to AAA last year. Perhaps he started using HGH?

As for the situation with Giambi, I'm headed to the hardware store to see how many 10 foot poles they have in stock.

I think my favorite part of the Belle-Grimsley Caper was the fact that they got caught because the bat Grimsley switched was the bat of another player and it had his name on it. Of course you ask (if you didn't follow that link or don't know the story) "Well, why didn't they use a clean bat of Belle's?"

Of course, the problem was, ALL of Belle's bats were corked. I wonder what that conversion was like:

Grimsley: "I know a secret way through the air ducts, I can totally switch the bats for you, Albert, just give me a clean one."
Belle: "Uhhh......"
Grimsley: "What, you corked ALL your bats? I mean, if one broke, it would be pretty obvious. Were you just going to walk back to the dugout and grab another like nothing happened?"
Belle: "Uhhh......"
Grimsley: "Oh, screw it, just give me another bat. Yeah, I know the guy's name is on it, but these umps can't even see the strike zone, you think they can tell the difference between 'Albert Belle' and 'Paul Sorrento'? Not a chance....."

I'm a little skeptical of the air duct story though because I don't believe that the average HVAC duct is made out of material strong enough to support a full-grown man. They tend to be fairly lightweight.

But it's been a staple of Hollywood for years!

5 Are you saying that MLB should start keeping samples now, and if a test for HGH becomes available in, say, 2009, they should then test every sample from every player for the previous four years? If not, how would they decide which samples to test?

And if they find out years later that one or more players had been using, what do they do? You can't vacate either team or individual records; it would be a nightmare. I suppose you could suspend someone in 2009 for having broken the drug policy in 2006, but does that really make any sense? It would quite probably penalize a team that had nothing to do with the earlier infraction.

i don't really know anything about how testing for HGH would work, but perhaps the blood samples could be compared year-to-year?

11- Making the infractions a matter of public record may be the only thing the league can do, but it seems to me that you're saying "Okay, we can't do anything about it retroactively, so let's not worry about it." The leage can ban players from affiliating with MLB in any form or fashion, and prevent coaching, managerial, scouting, or front office employment. Kind of akin to the "show-cause" tag college athletics employs for coaches like Todd Bozeman at Cal or Dave Bliss at Baylor.

13 I suppose they could, but I don't think they should. I guess I'm more forgiving than most people--I don't think breaking a rule now should mean I can't be employed in ten years. On the other hand, you're probably right that there would be value just in announcing who was (and wasn't) breaking the rules in any given season. More information is pretty much always better than less information. But if they did this, they would have to test either everyone or no one. Just re-testing "high profile" players, for example, would be horribly unfair.

Didn't Grimsley have a minor role in Saturday Night Live...the guy with the hair sticking up and always ending his sentences with "I must say..."

14 - But then this goes back to the whole debate about what "rules" there were for this so-called "Steroid Era". Is it fair to test by 2006 standards a sample from 2002 before the new steroid policies? Or from 1998? 1987? Very slippery slope here, and it seems an awful lot like today's witch hunt could end up penalizing a lot of players who, in one sense or another, did not do anything wrong...

16- This always gets me, the argument about rules at this time and that...The acquisition of drugs without proper prescription, or sale of illegal substances through the black market are violations of FEDERAL LAWS. I have no idea what the MLB policy was with respect to cocaine in the 1970's, but that didn't stop the league from crushing the Pirates. It was against the law, and the league has the right to do whatever it wants. Sorry if my tone seems harsh, but I am just so fed up with this "What was the policy?" stuff.

Fair enough Greg, but the league does seem to have chosen not to enforce those rules (ie not implementing strict drug testing with suspensions until after BALCO broke) at the time.

Suppose (example only, I have NO inside info here) that a player, oh maybe 80 years ago [let's call him "Babe Ruth"], played his entire career in violation of some Federal Law [I'll call that "the Eighteenth Amendment"] and yet the higher-ups in MLB chose to look the other way. Do we go back and strike out his accomplishments that may have been performed with illegal "assistance"? Try to determine which of his HRs should "count" because they were only hit when sober ("clean")? What makes this example any different from doing the same to Bonds with steroids, Grimsley for HGH, and so on?

Except that under the Volstead act, it wasn't illegal to drink. Prohibition banned only the manufacture, sale, and transport--but not possession or consumption--of alcohol. Don't sweat it, it's a common misconception. Plus, the fact that you're comparing bootleg gin to steroids and HGH is pretty gutsy.

So you are actually going to argue that Ruth wasn't "transporting" massive quantities of illegal alcohol during some of those trips around the bases? ;)

Regardless of that though, we've been through the argument a few times that cheating in one form of another has always been part of the game. Ty Cobb is in the Hall of Fame, as is Gaylord Perry, and if anything the widespread steroid use that many (Canseco!) are now willing to admit was one that both pitchers and batters took advantage of. Maybe I was just born too late but it seems to me the only difference between all of these cases is that this cheating is happening now, in an era of 24/7 media oversaturation, and because he refuses to play along with them it's acceptable to say things about (and to) Mister Bonds that were never even considered by previous generations. BUT then I might start my anti-baby boomer rant...of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

If it's any consolation, I'm 40 and I don't expect to collect any Social Security either, if you're upset about Baby Boomers.

Then again, I don't pay in to Social Security in my job.

Ehh somehow I have a hard time picturing you as "Generation X" Bob :)

The "Baby Boomer" thing is tired. The "Me Generation" is, I think, far more appropriate. I always found it hilarious that anti-war protests ended the day the draft was repealed. "Me Generation" is the reason.

As a 40-year old, I have found myself rejected by Baby Boomers and by Generation X.

Apparently no one was born in 1965.

Go drink a 40, Bob.